Orleans Dredging Co. v. Frazie

• Decision Date: 08 May 1939
• Docket Number: 33628.
• Citation: 188 So. 538
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: ORLEANS DREDGING CO v. FRAZIE.

188 So. 538

ORLEANS DREDGING CO v. FRAZIE.

No. 33628.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division B.

May 8, 1939

Appeal from Chancery Court, Adams County; R. W. Cutrer, Chancellor.

" Not to be reported in State Reports."

Suit by Stelly Frazie against the Orleans Dredging Company for injuries sustained by plaintiff while a seaman on a dredge boat at work in a channel of the Mississippi River. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals.

Reversed and rendered.

Brandon & Brandon, of Natchez, for appellant.

Engle & Laub, of Natchez, Watkins & Eager, of Jackson, and L. A Whittington and Jos. E. Brown, both of Natchez, for appellee.

ANDERSON, Justice.

Enough has been written by the Court about this case, maybe too much. This is its fourth appearance in this Court. The opinions on the former appeals elaborately discussed all the questions involved in the case, including those involved on this appeal. Orleans Dredging Co. v. Frazie, 173 Miss. 882, 161 So. 699; Orleans Dredging Co. v. Frazie, 179 Miss. 188, 173 So. 431; Frazie v. Orleans Dredging Co., Miss., 180 So. 816.

The first appeal was from a judgment in favor of the appellee on pleadings and evidence. The judgment was reversed and the cause remanded. The Court held that a case of liability was not made out under the Seamen's Act (46 U.S.C.A. §§ 688, 713). The other questions were discussed and disposed of in the opinion. On remand the cause was transferred from the circuit court to the chancery court where the pleadings were reformed to suit the procedure of that court. The bill sought recovery on three grounds, instead of on the Seamen's Act alone as theretofore, namely, that Act, the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Act (Act No. 20 of 1914), and the common law. The chancellor held the bill good on demurrer and granted an appeal to settle the principles of the cause. This Court held that the allegations of the bill did not state a case under the Seamen's Act; that the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Act applied, therefore, the common law did not, but that liability under that Act was barred by the statute of limitations. The decree was reversed and the cause remanded. When it went back, the appellee relied alone on the Seamen's Act and amended his bill, alleging more definitely and elaborately the facts which he claimed showed liability under that Act. Appellee's demurrer to the bill was sustained and an appeal again granted to settle the principles of the cause. This Court, in its opinion on that appeal, held that the amended bill stated a case within the Seamen's Act, and reversed the decree and remanded the cause. The Court in discussing that Act used this language :" In order that a nontidal stream or channel may have the character of navigability, so as to...